F@&@&%$ Hinske!
I'm going to recommend that everybody refrain from posting in the next 15 minutes to cool down. I know I feel like saying some things that I'll regret later...
On the plus side, Rios had an outstanding game and Huckaby had his first multi-hit game this season.
Oh, yes. I usually have Rios benched on my Fantasy team. Today I said "Well, he's in a slump, so I'll stick him in." (I always think in reverse like that...) Anyways, it paid off obviously.
Long long time reader but first time poster because this game pretty much ruined my day to the point that I decided to post. I mean we came all the way back but I think over the last 6 games it is very very evident that we REALLY REALLY need Doc and Lilly back, as absolutely no pitcher has been able to go six innings. Man I was screaming expletive after expletive hoping someone anyone would just hit a popup and score a Jay because it felt like a Jay was at third pretty much every inning.
And of course I know this is irrational and I dont actually mean it but fire Batista, AAHHHHH.
And of course I know this is irrational and I dont actually mean it but fire Batista, AAHHHHH.
I started watching this game around the 7th, and it just had to be the most disappointing game I've seen all year. To gain a lead in the bottom of the 8th which they have been fighting for the entire game, and then have it taken away by the closer who's been so solid for them makes me sick. Then you just have to mention the numerous times in which the Jays failed to get any runners in from third base with one out. Two words here. SAC FLY. Ordonez did it, why can't you guys? It just seems like whoever came up in that situation was looking to get a hit (and also trying to hit the ball as hard as they possibly could). This is totally the wrong approach. Just get the ball deep, and in the air.
Hinske should have bunted, but obviously you can't blame the game on him. He had been hitting the ball hard all day, and he even hit the ball hard for his DP. Even if he did bunt, who's to say that Zaun/ Catalonnato could get the runner in from third when they hadn't already done previously.
I'm beginning to want Speier in as closer, but then I come to my senses and think that I would rather have him pitch in the more important parts of the game such as the 7th and 8th innings. Batista still has good stuff out of the pen, and I think he still should remain as closer despite this little blunder.
The Jay's playoff hopes are slowly getting away, and when you can't win games with teams practically giving them to you, you don't deserve to win them at all. This game just really made me angry, and really reminded me a lot of Mike Weir's 2nd place finish last year in the Canadian Open.
Sorry for the rant, just had to get it all out..
Hinske should have bunted, but obviously you can't blame the game on him. He had been hitting the ball hard all day, and he even hit the ball hard for his DP. Even if he did bunt, who's to say that Zaun/ Catalonnato could get the runner in from third when they hadn't already done previously.
I'm beginning to want Speier in as closer, but then I come to my senses and think that I would rather have him pitch in the more important parts of the game such as the 7th and 8th innings. Batista still has good stuff out of the pen, and I think he still should remain as closer despite this little blunder.
The Jay's playoff hopes are slowly getting away, and when you can't win games with teams practically giving them to you, you don't deserve to win them at all. This game just really made me angry, and really reminded me a lot of Mike Weir's 2nd place finish last year in the Canadian Open.
Sorry for the rant, just had to get it all out..
Its not Hinske who made the completely irrational decision not to bunt...I'm not a big proponent of small ball but in that situation, its a no-brainer
I could let off a few F bombs like Hinske always does but I won't :)
You can't say the Jays couldn't hit in the clutch tonight because Hudson hit a clitch 2 HR homer to give the Jays the lead. But it was nothing but downhill after that. The Jays have fallen 8 back in the division and wildcard race. Needless to say if they don't roll off a 25 wins in 30 games type of streak, it's over.
On the positive side, I feel like the Jays are only a number 2 pitcher and number 4 hitter away from being serious playoff contenders. Hello AJ Burnett and Carlos Lee! With the Jays most likely taking the biggest bump in payroll in all of MLB and having a surplus of young arms to trade, I feel pretty good about next season.
You can't say the Jays couldn't hit in the clutch tonight because Hudson hit a clitch 2 HR homer to give the Jays the lead. But it was nothing but downhill after that. The Jays have fallen 8 back in the division and wildcard race. Needless to say if they don't roll off a 25 wins in 30 games type of streak, it's over.
On the positive side, I feel like the Jays are only a number 2 pitcher and number 4 hitter away from being serious playoff contenders. Hello AJ Burnett and Carlos Lee! With the Jays most likely taking the biggest bump in payroll in all of MLB and having a surplus of young arms to trade, I feel pretty good about next season.
Batista is not to blame for this game. Even the best of closers (Rivera, K- rod) blow 1 run saves like that because of fluke basehits, Outfield having to play deep to avoid the extra base hit, etc. Remember the 18 inning game would have been a loss if not for a couple broken bat hits by Vernon and Shea off of K-Rod. Batista is a reliable closer in my opinion but unfortunately, much like Halladay, his pitches are designed largely to be put into play for outs. As one person said on this site in April, I believe that Batista is prone to the occasional blown save not because of inevectiveness but due to his inability to miss bats.
Ron, there were no runners in scoring position for Hudson's HR, so it wasn't really clutch. It was just at the right time. He came up big, there is no doubting that, but it didn't help the Jays' pitiful numbers with RISP today.
How could you say Hudson's 2 run HR to give the Jays the lead wasn't a clutch hit?
Just because there wasn't a man on 2nd or 3rd when he hit the HR doesn't make it a non-clutch hit.
Just because there wasn't a man on 2nd or 3rd when he hit the HR doesn't make it a non-clutch hit.
If I were in J.P.'s shoes I would be making sure I had the biggest offer in to Brian Giles this offseason - His numbers in that park are sick and exactly the kind of strike zone control J.P. loves - then flip Rios for a good starting pitcher
1. Adams
2. Hill
3. Giles
4. Wells
5. Koskie
6. Shea
7. Cat
8. Zaun
9. O-Dog
That's an effective, balanced lineup
1. Adams
2. Hill
3. Giles
4. Wells
5. Koskie
6. Shea
7. Cat
8. Zaun
9. O-Dog
That's an effective, balanced lineup
but in that situation, its a no-brainer
The Bone, if that is your real name, it was hardly a no-brainer. Most base-hits would score the runner from second, and moving a runner from first to second is useless (that run doesn't matter in a potential walk-off situation).
And what if the bunt doesn't work?
I am not saying that bunting would have been a terrible idea (I am not arrogant enough to call the decision of a pretty decent Major League manager [Gibby] terrible or imply that he has no brain).
Reasonable people - with brains - can disagree about whether or not he should have bunted.
By far the most dissapointing game I've watched all season. Plenty of goat horns to go around-Bush, Batista, Zaun, HINKSE, and Gibbons. Love to ask some of these guys the 'what were you thinking??' question. Awful loss.
On the bright side we're still a game over 500 and we're playing the Tigers. If anyone remembers we were down 4-0 early in this one and very nearly won it. Rios played awesome tonight and was one of the reasons we even had a chance in the end. We can score against this team and if we get some decent starts these next three days, I think we'll win all three. Koskie got a couple of hits as well tonight including a HR. We wanted to win 3 out of 4 coming in anyway and we still have a very good chance of doing that.
Even the best of closers (Rivera, K- rod) blow 1 run saves like that
Hell, on my fantasy team a couple of weeks ago, K-Rod and Tom Gordon both gave up grand slams on the same night. If those guys give up the occasional gigantor like that, I don't blame Batista for this bloop-bloop-sac blown save. He didn't give up the lead, either.
And what's with Huckaby getting two hits? Nice work, Huck.
Hell, on my fantasy team a couple of weeks ago, K-Rod and Tom Gordon both gave up grand slams on the same night. If those guys give up the occasional gigantor like that, I don't blame Batista for this bloop-bloop-sac blown save. He didn't give up the lead, either.
And what's with Huckaby getting two hits? Nice work, Huck.
Look Ron, I don't want to get in any arguments about the definition of a "clutch" hit. I made my point about how the runner wasn't in scoring position, and how that certain hit didn't help their numbers in their department today. Right now, our argument is a difference of opinion, and there certainly isn't a way around that.
It doesn't matter anyway, there's not that much reason to get technical about this loss.
It doesn't matter anyway, there's not that much reason to get technical about this loss.
Leigh, if the bunt doesn't work... so what? Unless there's a complete catastrophy, you would still have runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out. Again, if the concern was Hinske not being able to get down a bunt, why not bring in Menechino?
I did not mean to say that it would be bad because he might not "successfully" complete the sacrifice. I meant that even a successful sacrifice might not be worth the out that it costs.
After the 3rd inning I go out, come back 2 and a half hours later to see what the score was and the first thing I hear when I turn on my TV is "After 12, we're knotted at 8"
Anyway, Schoeneweis didn't deserve to lose this game. Batista did... I didn't even see it but I heard Batista blew the save. I still have no faith in Batista being able to close the door constistently.
Anyway, Schoeneweis didn't deserve to lose this game. Batista did... I didn't even see it but I heard Batista blew the save. I still have no faith in Batista being able to close the door constistently.
how can you argue the logic of bunting in that situation? the bunt was practically created for that situation! would put the winning run at 3rd with 1 out! not to mention it was a left on left match-up, and what is hinske hitting against lefties anyways? the only logical argument is that hinske can't bunt-but why can't a guy that's batting .250 with 10 homeruns and who bats 8th learn to bunt? he certainly can't do much else....
You are all complaining about how Hinske did not bunt as if that was a key factor in why the jays could not get runs across the plate. Fine, it would have been smarter if Hinske were to have bunted, it may have moved the runner over and created only one out. If it was a bad bunt that was popped up and a double play was turned ( I have the double play against Seattle when Jeff Nelson let the ball drop and threw the runner out at third and then over to second for two), the jays are in a worse situation than with what happened.
Johnson was able to drop the bunt down earlier because the Inge was playing way too far back. Against Hinske, Inge and Young were charging the plate and could have scared Gibbons off from making the call for a bunt. Maybe, like the rest of us here, he has lost all confidence in Hinske and doesn't trust him to bunt.
Pinch-Hit Menechino then? Well now you have nobody left on the bench, Frank Menechino playing at first-base, a position he has NEVER played OR Hillenbrand moves to first base and the pitcher has to bat for himself the rest of the game because there is nobody left on the bench OR move Frank Catalanotto to first base, a position he has not played since 2003, and move Menechino or Hill or Adams or Hudson to the outfield, positions that they have played a combined 0 times
It appears that if Huckaby had been left in the game, hitting 2-3, would have been smarter if Zaun had come in, 0-3 with 2K's. Zaun would have been available to play 1B (played twice in his career) or 2B ( also played twice in his career).
Also, if Menechino comes in and somebody gets injured, the Jays would be screwed.
If it were the eigth ininng and Gibbons still had a full bench to work with, it would have been smarter to put in Menechino to bunt, but when Menechino is the only man on the bench, that decision is harder to make for Gibbons.
The Jays did not get clutch hits much past Hudson's Homer, and that is the story of the game, not Hinske not bunting. If they had clutch hits earlier, they would not have been in that situation.
Johnson was able to drop the bunt down earlier because the Inge was playing way too far back. Against Hinske, Inge and Young were charging the plate and could have scared Gibbons off from making the call for a bunt. Maybe, like the rest of us here, he has lost all confidence in Hinske and doesn't trust him to bunt.
Pinch-Hit Menechino then? Well now you have nobody left on the bench, Frank Menechino playing at first-base, a position he has NEVER played OR Hillenbrand moves to first base and the pitcher has to bat for himself the rest of the game because there is nobody left on the bench OR move Frank Catalanotto to first base, a position he has not played since 2003, and move Menechino or Hill or Adams or Hudson to the outfield, positions that they have played a combined 0 times
It appears that if Huckaby had been left in the game, hitting 2-3, would have been smarter if Zaun had come in, 0-3 with 2K's. Zaun would have been available to play 1B (played twice in his career) or 2B ( also played twice in his career).
Also, if Menechino comes in and somebody gets injured, the Jays would be screwed.
If it were the eigth ininng and Gibbons still had a full bench to work with, it would have been smarter to put in Menechino to bunt, but when Menechino is the only man on the bench, that decision is harder to make for Gibbons.
The Jays did not get clutch hits much past Hudson's Homer, and that is the story of the game, not Hinske not bunting. If they had clutch hits earlier, they would not have been in that situation.
I have trouble complaining about the offense when they score eight runs. Dave Bush stunk tonight and Batista couldn't protect a one-run lead. The hitters almost pulled it out anyway.
the 9th inning, both top and bottom was the real stinker for me. The runners at 1st and 2nd with Hinske up should never have happened if both ends of the ninth had not gone so badly. !
Some thoughts:
- The key moment of the game was Gregg Zaun swinging at a 3-1 pitch with the bases loaded in the bottom of ninth. It would have been ball four, and it would have been the ballgame.
- Good managing consists in part of not asking players to do what they're not capable of doing. I have no recollection of ever seeing Eric Hinske successfully lay down a bunt. Swinging away was at least as good an option, if not better; that the move didn't work doesn't change that fact.
- Almost overlooked in all this was a very disappointing start from Dave Bush. He's suffering through pronounced rookie pangs, and while I certainly haven't given up on him, it's pretty clear he's 4th-starter material at best right now. I hope for better from him in 2006.
- Batista blew the save on what amounted to two flare singles and a sacrifice fly. I don't feel like he deserves goat horns.
- These are the kinds of games you lose when you're edging towards contention but not there yet; growing pains, basically. Things would of course be different with Halladay and Lilly on hand, but every team suffers injuries. Build on the positive -- I've rarely seen Rios look better, for instance, and Speier was throwing smoke -- and don't sweat losses like these too much.
- The key moment of the game was Gregg Zaun swinging at a 3-1 pitch with the bases loaded in the bottom of ninth. It would have been ball four, and it would have been the ballgame.
- Good managing consists in part of not asking players to do what they're not capable of doing. I have no recollection of ever seeing Eric Hinske successfully lay down a bunt. Swinging away was at least as good an option, if not better; that the move didn't work doesn't change that fact.
- Almost overlooked in all this was a very disappointing start from Dave Bush. He's suffering through pronounced rookie pangs, and while I certainly haven't given up on him, it's pretty clear he's 4th-starter material at best right now. I hope for better from him in 2006.
- Batista blew the save on what amounted to two flare singles and a sacrifice fly. I don't feel like he deserves goat horns.
- These are the kinds of games you lose when you're edging towards contention but not there yet; growing pains, basically. Things would of course be different with Halladay and Lilly on hand, but every team suffers injuries. Build on the positive -- I've rarely seen Rios look better, for instance, and Speier was throwing smoke -- and don't sweat losses like these too much.
I meant that even a successful sacrifice might not be worth the out that it costs.
That's pretty much impossible in that situation Leigh. As I pointed out in last night's chat, I think some people misinterpret some common 'stathead' principles.
Number one is that it's bad to bunt. This is not true. Sacrificing is shown to decrease the possibility of 'big' innings (which normally result in wins). However they do INCREASE the chance of scoring one run, which is why it is a no-brainer in the situation last night.
Two is that 'clutch hitting' doesn't exist so the Jays current run is just 'bad luck'. In this case the current Jays run may be just bad luck, but that has nothing to do with the 'clutch hitting' argument. Studies have shown while there doesn't appear to any measurable skill in clutch ability, the opposite definately does exist! Some hitters are noticeably worse in clutch situations. If you think about this it makes inherent sense. A hitter can't 'force' a hit, otherwise he'd do it all the time, however stress and pressure can definately diminish one's performance.
I don't think it would have been difficult for Menechino to play first for a couple of innings. First base is the lowest position on the defensive spectrum and it's not hard to make the basic plays at first without practice. I would have pinch-hit Menechino for Hinske against the lefty, as it increases the odds of us winning the game (Menechino hits lefties better than Eric and is also a much better bunter, if you want to ask him to sacrifice). If it doesn't work you have Menechino playing first base for a couple of innings and it wouldn't kill us, at all.
It's not like we're putting Adam Dunn at SS or anything. Backup middle infielders should be able to play an adequate first base without much problem and they've been able to before. Just off the top of my head, Dave Berg, Chris Woodward and Joe McEwing are three guys who started playing first occasionally, mid-way through their careers. Menechino's not any different. His only disadvantage would be his lack of height hinders his ability to stretch for slightly errant throws, but I'd take the chance.
It's not like we're putting Adam Dunn at SS or anything. Backup middle infielders should be able to play an adequate first base without much problem and they've been able to before. Just off the top of my head, Dave Berg, Chris Woodward and Joe McEwing are three guys who started playing first occasionally, mid-way through their careers. Menechino's not any different. His only disadvantage would be his lack of height hinders his ability to stretch for slightly errant throws, but I'd take the chance.
Good managing consists in part of not asking players to do what they're not capable of doing. I have no recollection of ever seeing Eric Hinske successfully lay down a bunt. Swinging away was at least as good an option, if not better; that the move didn't work doesn't change that fact.
Does anybody else wonder why Hinske, or any major leaguer can't bunt? I'm a fan of using it sparingly, but it really seems like it'd be a handy skill to have. How hard is it to learn how to become a competent bunter?
Does anybody else wonder why Hinske, or any major leaguer can't bunt? I'm a fan of using it sparingly, but it really seems like it'd be a handy skill to have. How hard is it to learn how to become a competent bunter?
Christopher, that's a good point and one that's been made repeatedly by some broadcasters. My suspicion is that, unless bunting is a major part of your game (Scott Podsednik, Nook Logan, Joey Gathright, Carl Crawford, Reed Johnson), players just don't tend to practice it as they figure their hitting time is better spent working on other improvements. Plus, when a player is asked to bunt two or three times a year and fails, it doesn't provide a major incentive for him to change, because it happens so infrequently. In fact, it may reinforce the notion, to that player at least, that he's not a bunter and the manager shouldn't be asking him to bunt.
I'd bet Hinske, internally at least, would have been annoyed if Gibbons asked him to bunt and he had failed. But instead of viewing it as a failure on his part, I'd think he'd be saying, "See? That's why you don't ask me to bunt. I'm not a bunter."
The potential problem with bunting in that situation is that if it was sucessful, Darensbourg would have walked Zaun and then pitched to Cat with the bases loaded and one out. Cat's a good hitter, but lefty on lefty would have noticably decreased his odds of scoring runner, as Cat tends to get jammed frequently when facing southpaws.
I'd bet Hinske, internally at least, would have been annoyed if Gibbons asked him to bunt and he had failed. But instead of viewing it as a failure on his part, I'd think he'd be saying, "See? That's why you don't ask me to bunt. I'm not a bunter."
The potential problem with bunting in that situation is that if it was sucessful, Darensbourg would have walked Zaun and then pitched to Cat with the bases loaded and one out. Cat's a good hitter, but lefty on lefty would have noticably decreased his odds of scoring runner, as Cat tends to get jammed frequently when facing southpaws.
Hinske _certainly_ should have bunted in that situation.
The only defense, which has already been made, is that he can't bunt. I think that's pretty weak. If Hinske can't bunt, I'm afraid that's a comment on the management as well. I know guys don't like to practise it, but if you're the manager, and you're looking at Hinske's numbers ... well, you'd better tell him to start working on it.
I'm sorry, but that situation SCREAMED bunt.
- It's your number eight hitter.
- He's oh-for-something big already.
- He's facing a lefty, and is hitting .154 against them this year.
?!?!
The odds were very small that Hinske would drive in the run in that situation.
Sure, something could go wrong during the bunt - but you don't _expect_ it to. You _expect_ the chance of bunting into a double play to be less than if the batter hit away - that's why you do it, right?
If Hinske successfully bunts, you've got the _winning_ run at 3rd with one out. (Naturally, the runner on second means nothing - that's not why you're bunting. Don't confuse the issue.) Your next two hitters, Zaun - .265 overall, .299 against lefties - and Catalanotto - .298 overall, and .401 against lefties - have drastically better chances of driving in that run _with a hit_, forget about a sac fly or something else. Even if they walk Zaun, that's just fine. Let Cat hit with the sacks full and nowhere to put him. The corners probably tight. It's all good.
Curiously, Gibbons played little ball in the bottom of seven, bunting Hill with runners on first and second and none out - and I think it was a very marginal call in a game which had already seen 13 runs scored. Even down a single run, I'm playing for more than one in that situation. Nevertheless, I suspect lots of managers would make that call. But, why would he play small ball there, and not later in the game, when a single run wouldn't have just _tied it_ (with two innings left, still), but WON it?
If the answer is just that Hinske can't bunt ... well, pardon the vernacular, but that's a sucky reason. Put Menechino in, and drop the bunt. Period.
There were lots of other things that went wrong in that game, but that was a REAL bad call, IMHO.
The only defense, which has already been made, is that he can't bunt. I think that's pretty weak. If Hinske can't bunt, I'm afraid that's a comment on the management as well. I know guys don't like to practise it, but if you're the manager, and you're looking at Hinske's numbers ... well, you'd better tell him to start working on it.
I'm sorry, but that situation SCREAMED bunt.
- It's your number eight hitter.
- He's oh-for-something big already.
- He's facing a lefty, and is hitting .154 against them this year.
?!?!
The odds were very small that Hinske would drive in the run in that situation.
Sure, something could go wrong during the bunt - but you don't _expect_ it to. You _expect_ the chance of bunting into a double play to be less than if the batter hit away - that's why you do it, right?
If Hinske successfully bunts, you've got the _winning_ run at 3rd with one out. (Naturally, the runner on second means nothing - that's not why you're bunting. Don't confuse the issue.) Your next two hitters, Zaun - .265 overall, .299 against lefties - and Catalanotto - .298 overall, and .401 against lefties - have drastically better chances of driving in that run _with a hit_, forget about a sac fly or something else. Even if they walk Zaun, that's just fine. Let Cat hit with the sacks full and nowhere to put him. The corners probably tight. It's all good.
Curiously, Gibbons played little ball in the bottom of seven, bunting Hill with runners on first and second and none out - and I think it was a very marginal call in a game which had already seen 13 runs scored. Even down a single run, I'm playing for more than one in that situation. Nevertheless, I suspect lots of managers would make that call. But, why would he play small ball there, and not later in the game, when a single run wouldn't have just _tied it_ (with two innings left, still), but WON it?
If the answer is just that Hinske can't bunt ... well, pardon the vernacular, but that's a sucky reason. Put Menechino in, and drop the bunt. Period.
There were lots of other things that went wrong in that game, but that was a REAL bad call, IMHO.
I spent most of time last night watching the Dolphins-Bears game but three things struck me: 1) O-dog has really impressed me with his bat recently and I'd be really disappointed if the traded him. 2) Russ Adams doesn't really seem like a rookie hitter to me anymore, especially the way he hung in there against the lefty in extra innings. 3) I think Darensberg is the first baseball player over the age of 10 I've seen tuck his ears inside his hat.
But, why would he play small ball there, and not later in the game, when a single run wouldn't have just _tied it_ (with two innings left, still), but WON it?
You may be answering your own question here. The fact that it didn't work in the seventh may have been the very reason Gibby was reluctant to try it again in extra innings. You can't always blame the manager for the players' failure to execute.
I have to agree with Jordan about Zaun. He did swing at ball four and the game would have been over at that point. That, for me, was the key moment. Hinske, from what I can see, has never laid down a successful bunt in his major league career. It was a great game and a terrible one to lose but the Jays are just good enough this year to break your heart. That's a lot more fun that last year, and a hopeful portent of what the next few years may bring.
I know this has nothing to do with anything, but this is why I admire Ozzie Guillen. Sure the guy is a total jerk/scumbag, but he makes sure that EVERY player on his team knows how to do the basics? And what happens if they don't learn how you ask, or if their ego's are too big for that kind of stuff? They don't play, it's that simple. I'd like to see Gibbons take a page out of Guillen's book when it comes to that. Not that you have to constantly bunt and play small ball, but just the fact that you are prepared when the PERFECT situation (like last night with Hinske for example) arises.
I was saying it in the chat and I'll say it here, I really agree with what Ryne Sandberg said during his Hall of Fame speech. He never let the fact that he was a star player get between him and playing fundamentally sound baseball. I agree with him that it is a damn travesty that players don't know how to bunt... I mean, it's the simplest play in the game. That speaks to work ethic and it speaks to ego.
The Jays snatched defeat from the jaws of victory last night, no other way to put it in my mind.
I was saying it in the chat and I'll say it here, I really agree with what Ryne Sandberg said during his Hall of Fame speech. He never let the fact that he was a star player get between him and playing fundamentally sound baseball. I agree with him that it is a damn travesty that players don't know how to bunt... I mean, it's the simplest play in the game. That speaks to work ethic and it speaks to ego.
The Jays snatched defeat from the jaws of victory last night, no other way to put it in my mind.
In my view, Dave Bush, despite his poor start yesterday is a significantly better pitcher than Ted Lilly. Bush has performed better than Lilly this season and over his career.
The most worrisome thing is Bush's K rate, but he has less than a full season of major league experience and a good minor league K rate. With his control, all he needs to do is keep his K rate in the 5.5-6 range per 9IP, and he will be a fine, fine pitcher over the next 5 years.
As for the Hinske at-bat with runners on first and second and nobody out, it is really a tough call. Hinske has hit .232/.300/.392 in 490 at-bats in his career against lefties. Although he took an 0 fer last night, he had hit the ball hard twice. Personally, I would have pinch-hit Menechino, and had him bunting. If the sacrifice works, it would likely set up a bases loaded situation, 1 out situation for Cat. Not that there is any guarantee that this would work or that the chance of success is significantly higher than the choice that Gibbons made.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. Your manager should be smart enough to distinguish between situations. There's a difference between playing for the tying run in the bottom of the seventh in a 7-6 game, and playing for the winning run in extras. If your manager can't comprehend that, it says something bad.
But, in fact, Hill _did_ execute properly in the seventh. It was following batters who failed. You might apply your reasoning in the opposite manner, and have Gibbons inspired by Hill's proper execution of the bunt - and have him hope that, this time, following batters could get the run home.
I don't blame Hinske. He did his best. (Why he's playing against lefties so much - that is, why Gibbons caved - is beyond me.) In THAT situation, I blame Gibbons for not ordering the bunt in a dead-obvious bunt situation. I'm not blaming the loss on that call, but it still stinks. Stink, stank, stunk.
But, in fact, Hill _did_ execute properly in the seventh. It was following batters who failed. You might apply your reasoning in the opposite manner, and have Gibbons inspired by Hill's proper execution of the bunt - and have him hope that, this time, following batters could get the run home.
I don't blame Hinske. He did his best. (Why he's playing against lefties so much - that is, why Gibbons caved - is beyond me.) In THAT situation, I blame Gibbons for not ordering the bunt in a dead-obvious bunt situation. I'm not blaming the loss on that call, but it still stinks. Stink, stank, stunk.
I was at the game, and knew Zaun would be totally FUMING about his failure to execute in that situation. In fact, after slamming his bat back into the rack in the dugout, he took at out again, then stomped on it and snapped it in half on the floor.
...
It looked like the rest of the team was giving him a wide berth ... :-/
...
It looked like the rest of the team was giving him a wide berth ... :-/
Urk - sorry - should have quoted more properly.
Comment one was a reply to Four Seamer.
Comment two was a reply to the mick.
...
Dang newbies ...
Comment one was a reply to Four Seamer.
Comment two was a reply to the mick.
...
Dang newbies ...
Does anybody else wonder why Hinske, or any major leaguer can't bunt?
I can understand it in Hinske's case. The guy has had enough problems simply hitting the ball and keeping his average about .240. He's got more important things to worry about during batting practice.
But your point is certainly valid as it pertains to the attitude towards bunting throughout Major League Baseball.
But, in fact, Hill _did_ execute properly in the seventh. It was following batters who failed. You might apply your reasoning in the opposite manner, and have Gibbons inspired by Hill's proper execution of the bunt - and have him hope that, this time, following batters could get the run home.
That's exactly right - the failure of Koskie to execute by driving Wells home from third in the seventh is specifically what might have been motivating Gibbons to let Hinske swing away, on the theory that he'd rather take three cracks at a game winning single, as opposed to giving up an out and having only two cracks at a game winning single and one single crack at a sac fly. He left himself exposed to the double play, but in baseball, as in life, you can never remove risk from the equation entirely.
I'm not saying that it was the right decision, necessarily, only that it was a defensible one and not nearly as cut and dried a situation as you and others have been making it out to be. I didn't care much for the bunt in the seventh, not because I disliked playing for a tie (which can be a reasonable thing to do when you're at home), but because I hate giving up that out. It's a different scenario in extra innings, for sure, but a manager has to have some feel for the game. Darensbourg had just come in and given up two quick hits, and it wasn't unreasonable to think he might give up another. Why give him a free out, and make his job getting out of the inning easier?
The guy has had enough problems simply hitting the ball and keeping his average about .240. He's got more important things to worry about during batting practice.
Maybe even more of a reason for why he should learn how to bat. Plus, nothing says he has to eat into his current batting practice time. Maybe take extra batting practice to fit it in.
Maybe even more of a reason for why he should learn how to bat. Plus, nothing says he has to eat into his current batting practice time. Maybe take extra batting practice to fit it in.
... I didn't even see it but I heard Batista blew the save. I still have no faith in Batista being able to close the door constistently.
So you didn't see the inning, yet you have a very defined opinion of him. Oh, Please. I'll say a very bold statement:
Batista tonight, made me have more confidence in him.
He gave up two incredibly flukey hits, lazy fly balls, which found holes in an unusual defensive setup to prevent extra base hits.
And with regards to the Hinske play, while a Menechino pinch bunt is easy to say in retrospect, the worse thing that could've happened in that play was a runner on third with 2 out which still isn't a bad outcome. After his at bat a base hit would've scored this run.
I'm not blaming the offence or bullpen for this game, and it can be argued that nobody can be blamed, since it was a flukey game, for both sides, and sometimes it rolls in your favour or not. But I will blame the lack of our rotation going deep into ballgames. 6 innings please. Bush has been good lately, but after a tough loss yesterday, the starter simply has to do better.
Like Wilner said, it would not surprise me to see a pitcher this series kept out there to dry, if the situation presents itself. At this rate, the pen will be very tired by September.
why he should learn how to bat
Bah, learn how to bunt
Bah, learn how to bunt
Like Wilner said, it would not surprise me to see a pitcher this series kept out there to dry, if the situation presents itself.
I don't disagree, but I doubt that task will fall to McGowan tonight. Downs better hope that either Dustin or Gustavo go deep in their starts, or else he better bring some good stuff with him on Thursday. It will be a long night for him otherwise.
the worse thing that could've happened in that play was a runner on third with 2 out which still isn't a bad outcome
The worst thing that could have happened was a triple play.
And seriously, while a runner on third with 2 out isn't bad in a neutral sense, it is certainly a bad outcome when you look at it in context. With two on and none out the team has three opportunties to score a run (in most instances) with a single and can also score through getting the lead runner to third base with the first out, which enables the next hitter to score him on a sacrifice fly or a hard groundout. The Jays only needed one run in this situation, so that's all they should have been concerned with. Hinske's outcome was terrible for the situation. It'd have been better if he struck out.
Jays In An Hour is on in two minutes, so we'll be able to re-watch and decide for sure whether or not it was a strike. ;)
The jury was sequestered for another 6 hours due to an extremely difficult diaper. :)
Joe Sheehan of BP on the Jays the last week:
'Over the last five days, with a chance to make the baseball world care, the Toronto Blue Jays spit the bit. They didn't lose because of payroll gaps or deficiencies in roster-building or a different approach to drafting. They lost because their players didn't play well.
Sometimes, you just have to play baseball. The Jays didn't. "
'Over the last five days, with a chance to make the baseball world care, the Toronto Blue Jays spit the bit. They didn't lose because of payroll gaps or deficiencies in roster-building or a different approach to drafting. They lost because their players didn't play well.
Sometimes, you just have to play baseball. The Jays didn't. "